david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (02/23/85)
> I'm not sure if this belongs on net.politics, but someone mentioned > the great numerical advantage of the Anglo-Dutch-Prussian alliance > against Napoleon at Waterloo. I must hasten, for the sake of > historical accuracy, to say the French had the Prussians and the > forces under Wellington split. The real failure was not Napoleon's > at all, but Marshall Ney, who while his Emperor was sick, > ordered an ill-fated cavalry charge right into the teeth of > the British Infantry. Needless to say, Napoleon was not amused. > > DAVE BROWN > > ============================================================================== > WHO SAID HISTORY IS IRRELEVANT? > ============================================================================== Right, let's form net.history! (:-)) It was I who pointed out that the French were greatly outnumbered by the Anglo-Dutch and Prussian armies (though approximately equal in size to either one of them), and it is I who will point out that one cannot intelligently discuss history by saying if x had (not) done y, the outcome would have been different. It wasn't Ney's fault for being tactically inept, but Napoleon's for selecting him while leaving Davout in Paris (or refusing peace offers in 1813 based upon France's "natural frontiers" or for possessing such immense ambition in the first place), or it was Grouchy's fault for allowing the Prussian army to arrive at Waterloo, or it was Soult's fault for not writing particularly clear orders, or it was... Please, let us not heap blame upon poor Ney---there is plenty to go around. The events of 1815 certainly are too broad to be summed up by one Marshal's shortcomings, despite the writings of propagandists for the first French Empire. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david